![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "fudog50" wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:23:23 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "running with losers" wrote in message om... "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Gord Beaman" wrote in message . .. "Jim Knoyle" wrote: Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure' alone. Or did I misunderstand you? Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox. I know...ain't life a bitch John ![]() ![]() Ummm, I performed dozens of the old FAR 91.171 (pitot/static annual checks) and 91.172 (mode 'C' checks) in the early 90's on Pipers, Cessna, Grumman, Lanceair, Beech, you name it. Also performed all the calibration and repair necessary, (the lines, indicators, ports, pitot tubes, etc.) I worked a part time job at a GA avionics shop at Palo Alto. IIRC, the only indicator that had both pitot and static inputs was the VSI/Rate of climb indicator and the internal bellows in the gauge performed the differential action. Airspeed has pitot inputs only. Baro Alt. has static port input only. Wish I could draw you a diagram on here, it would explain everything. Since posting rubbish like he posted below, no amount of diagrams have helped. It's a case of "That's my story and I'm sticking to it!" Revealing that in my 37 years up the road at SFO I had done easily hundreds of low range pitot/static leak tests resulting in the replacement of dozens of pitot tubes/probes/masts or whatever Tarver wants to call those pointy things up front, only brought about months of fraud claims and all of the other bits splaps is well known for. Requoting Gord's question to me out of context is only his latest. Pt *still* equals (altitude pressure) + (impact pressure). JK http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html GREAT MOMENTS IN ADA: "That is the case with all modern transports Gord. Pitot tubes are only used for flight test back up instrumentation for modern transports; pitot tubes have a nasty habbit of atracting mud bees and are therefore not reliable enough for revenue these past few decades." -- John Tarver, Skylight Avionics, December 26, 2001 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fine example of Tarver Engineering release for service | running with scissors | Instrument Flight Rules | 64 | March 3rd 04 05:01 AM |
Fine example of Tarver Engineering release for service | running with scissors | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | February 28th 04 05:07 PM |
To Tarver Engineering | fudog50 | Military Aviation | 2 | January 9th 04 07:15 PM |
About death threats and other Usenet potpourri :-) | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 4 | December 23rd 03 07:16 AM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |